Subject: Re: [boost] Road to low-quality-code is paved with good intentions of dropping dependencies
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-09 12:22:08
Daniel James wrote:
> On 8 January 2015 at 05:27, Peter Dimov <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > It [hash] 's also in the package 'functional' (that is, it resides in
> > the directory libs/functional and the package script and bpm at the
> > moment do not support finer resolution than libs/*)
> They probably should support a finer resolution, there are several
> examples of this in boost.
Tradeoffs here. Nested packages (one in functional/, the other in
functional/hash/) present a slight problem for bpm in that it can't just
nuke libs/functional when told to remove 'functional', as it currently does.
It obviously _can_ be made smarter about it, but this would require keeping
metadata about what's installed and what isn't, with the potential of said
metadata going out of sync with what's actually installed, being deleted by
the user, and so on.
Currently, you can manually delete libs/functional instead of bpm remove -f
functional, both do the same thing. This simplicity of operation has its
benefits for users (it's not just for my convenience).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk